Malthusian paradigm and the issue of compulsion in family planning
Pethe, V.P.
International Journal of Social Economics 9(6-7): 63-71
1982
ISSN/ISBN: 0306-8293 PMID: 12264910 DOI: 10.1108/eb013921Document Number: 393243
Addresses the question of whether Malthus, were he alive today, would support compulsory family planning (a policy generally referred to as "Malthusian"). The neomalthusian position is basically that the race between population growth and development of resources, especially food supply, is highly unequal; poverty and stagnation are the inevitable outcome. Population growth must therefore be curbed by whatever means are available, through legal compulsion if necessary. A number of statements from Indian government sources during the mid 1970s, with regard to sterilization, are offered as illustrations. The Malthusian paradigm described has been subjected to severe criticism, which leads to questions about its validity as a justification for compulsory sterilization. Malthus distinguished between policy measures for control of population, rejecting all but the moral restraint implied in postponement of marriage. Thus, like Gandhi, he rejected the belief that the ends justify the means. The Malthusian basis is seen as untenable for 3 reasons: it is erroneous (science and technology have nullified the thesis of over population as the cause of poverty); it is dangerous (treating symptoms rather than the disease); it is inadequate, leaving out variables other than the economic from its analysis. Malthus the moralist would have rejected compulsion, and the use of his paradigm to justify such a policy does him an injustice.